A man was refused the sale of a firearm after saying it was a gift for his wife.

[steve4102]

Be bought a firearm with his own money...it's his, his intent after that is his own business.

Not exactly, Intent before the purchase is Key.

 

[NJgunowner]

Oui, there's a lot of people on here who could end up on the wrong side of the law... I'm sure that people convicted of straw purchases have made many of these same arguments in court.

 

[steve4102]

there's a lot of people on here who could end up on the wrong side of the law.

Please explain?

 

[chimo]

Not exactly, Intent before the purchase is Key.

That is thought police hogwash. Who are you to establish intent?

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man.

If the buyer expresses an intent to sell or trade the firearm to some unspecified party at some unspecified future time...that is not a straw man.

If the buyer expresses an intent to gift the firearm to some other party...that also is not a strawman.

 

[zukiphile]

Not exactly, Intent before the purchase is Key.

That is thought police hogwash. Who are you to establish intent?

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man.

While intent may play a role, and an individual may express an intent, neither the intent nor its expression is central to a sale being a straw sale, i.e. one to an agent rather than the actual buyer.

If Zuk decides to be Chimo's agent pursuant to their agreement and Zuk poses as the buyer to an FFL, even if Zuk never expresses to the FFL his intent to act as Chimo's agent, the sale still involves a misrepresentation of the identity of the true buyer.

Timing, before or after the FFL transfer, is key. If Zuk decides to sell to Chimo after the FFL transfer, there can't have been an agency relationship at the time of the FFL transfer, so Zuk could not have fraudulently concealed such a relationship.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile ....Tom, if you review AHG's post, you will see that he does not state any understanding between he and his "lady friend". A purely subjective understanding of an individual doesn't create agency.

Horsehockey.......he stated his intention to the store clerk with her standing right beside him.

zukiphile .....If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours.

No, it isn't.
You keep quoting Abramski, but fail to realize what he was convicted of.

Federal law allows anyone to purchase a firearm as a genuine GIFT. Your statement above is misleading at best, an invitation to handcuffs at worst. NO ONE can buy a firearm for someone else with the expectation that they will be reimbursed.

chimo

Quote:
Bottom line is aarondhgraham lied on the 4473.......it's a straw sale.

Bottom line is that you don't know what you are talking about, despite multiple people attempting to save you from yourself.

Really?
Not only is your reading comprehension at question, so is your mathematical skills. At last count only zukiphile seems to have attempted any disagreement.

Bottom line is, several licensed dealers are in this thread and every single one has agreed with me. Go get your FFL, start reading you some ATF regs and get back to us.

Be bought a firearm with his own money...it's his, his intent after that is his own business.

See........here's where you lost the plot, if you ever understood it in the first place, aarondhgraham stated in his first post that he had intended from the beginning to acquire the firearm with the specific intention of trading it IMMEDIATELY to a third party (his lady friend)....he even took her to the gun store to examine the pistol and for her approval.

chimo

Quote:
Not exactly, Intent before the purchase is Key

.
That is thought police hogwash. Who are you to establish intent?

For one, I'm a licensed gun dealer. If I suspect a straw sale I am required to cancel the transaction.

How do I become suspicious? Well, the actions and comments made by the buyer are pretty telling as to intent. aarondhgraham's intent is pretty darn obvious.

While I find your "thought police" comment hysterically funny, I also believe it shows your naiveté in regards to criminal law.

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man..

Nothing in Federal law or ATF regulations requires a buyer to express an intent to act as a agent for another person. The simple act of purchasing the firearm on behalf of another person is a straw sale (with the sole exception of a gift).

If the buyer expresses an intent to sell or trade the firearm to some unspecified party at some unspecified future time...that is not a straw man

If you had read a shred of aarondhgrahams post you would know the answers to those "ifs".

If the buyer expresses an intent to gift the firearm to some other party...that also is not a strawman.

No kidding.
At no point was "gifting" mentioned by aarondhgraham...........but he DID specifically mention "trading".

 

[Slamfire]

I'm sure that people convicted of straw purchases have made many of these same arguments in court.

I believe you are right. Gun buyers make stupid statements to Gun Dealers. At one dealer, the guy behind the counter had heard buyers tell him they were going to buy this gun so they could go kill someone. Obviously, the sale did not go through!

In this current climate, I would not fault a single gun dealer who turned down a buyer who said "this is a gift for XXXX". The dealer has a lot more liability than the buyer, and who knows if the buyer is actually an anti gun journalist trying to create a story, or a BATF plant. What we do know, any gun buyer telling the dealer that this gun is not for them, but a gift for "XXXX" is a FOOL and I would not accept the future liability of selling a gun to a fool. The fool may be gifting the gun to a felon, their druggie son or daughter, or a future rampage shooter. When the fool is interviewed by Police, after said druggie relative robs and murders someone with that gun, the fool will tell the police "but I told the dealer it was a gift"! If you have not dealt with enough fools, let me reassure all, fools are never responsible for their foolish actions. They will do everything possible to shift responsibility to someone, anyone, else.

Because gun owners are not going to the polls with a vengeance, and not voting out anti gun politicians, instead letting anti gunners vote in anti gun politicians, the day will come, when you cannot gift a firearm to a relative, spouse, etc, without the gift receiver undergoing a back ground check.

 

[zukiphile]

....Tom, if you review AHG's post, you will see that he does not state any understanding between he and his "lady friend". A purely subjective understanding of an individual doesn't create agency.

Horsehockey.......he stated his intention to the store clerk with her standing right beside him.

And what intent did he state?

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,

Above, you have assumed for the convenience of your conclusion both that the lady friend is the intended transferee and that they have come to agreement on an agency relationship before the FFL transfer.

Neither is stated in his post. See now?

.

....If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours.

No, it isn't.
You keep quoting Abramski, but fail to realize what he was convicted of.

Tom, I haven't kept quoting Abramski. I quoted it for you once. I haven't failed to realize what "he was convicted of". I read the case.

Is it possible that your sense that others need to read more is projection?

Federal law allows anyone to purchase a firearm as a genuine GIFT. Your statement above is misleading at best, an invitation to handcuffs at worst. NO ONE can buy a firearm for someone else with the expectation that they will be reimbursed.

That is incorrect. One who buys a firearm expecting to sell it to another in the future and who expects re-imbursement on sale does what every second hand seller does.

Not only is your reading comprehension at question, so is your mathematical skills. At last count only zukiphile seems to have attempted any disagreement.

Bottom line is, several licensed dealers are in this thread and every single one has agreed with me. Go get your FFL, start reading you some ATF regs and get back to us.

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Clear reasoning will not incorporate it.

An appeal to authority is also a fallacy, though simple federal firearm licensing isn't a stand in for authority to construe code or caselaw.

Note that while you chide others to read, your count above may be off a bit.

If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man..

Nothing in Federal law or ATF regulations requires a buyer to express an intent to act as a agent for another person. The simple act of purchasing the firearm on behalf of another person is a straw sale (with the sole exception of a gift).

Your first sentence is correct if you mean it from the vantage point of the FFL; a buyer need not express fraudulent intent to the ffl.

Your second sentence is ambiguous. If "on behalf of" means according to an agreement between agent and principle, you are correct.

FFL or not, caution is often a virtue; if you exhibit that caution in your sales that's great. A more cautious approach to evaluating the legality of a transaction from a single online post might have saved you from jumping to conclusions about facts not available to you. It might also restrain you from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you "needs to read".

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Quote:
....Tom, if you review AHG's post, you will see that he does not state any understanding between he and his "lady friend". A purely subjective understanding of an individual doesn't create agency.

Horsehockey.......he stated his intention to the store clerk with her standing right beside him.

And what intent did he state?

Quote:
I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,

Above, you have assumed for the convenience of your conclusion both that the lady friend is the intended transferee and that they have come to agreement on an agency relationship before the FFL transfer.

Neither is stated in his post. See now?

How convenient you "forgot" to include the entire conversation that aarondhgraham had with the clerk:

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.

So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

He stated that he intended to buy the gun and immediately trade it to his lady friend. It a straw sale. He lied on the 4473. It's a felony.

Stop being obtuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
.

Quote:
....If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours.

No, it isn't.
You keep quoting Abramski, but fail to realize what he was convicted of.

Tom, I haven't kept quoting Abramski. I quoted it for you once. I haven't failed to realize what "he was convicted of". I read the case.

Is it possible that your sense that others need to read more is projection?

Abramski was convicted for lying on the 4473. He answered that he was the actual buyer/transferee........he was not. It is the same situation as aarondhgraham except that his lady friend is trading him instead of writing a check.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Federal law allows anyone to purchase a firearm as a genuine GIFT. Your statement above is misleading at best, an invitation to handcuffs at worst. NO ONE can buy a firearm for someone else with the expectation that they will be reimbursed.

That is incorrect. One who buys a firearm expecting to sell it to another in the future and who expects re-imbursement on sale does what every second hand seller does.

Oh good grief......read the instructions on the 4473 and tell me what exception there is other than giving a gun as a gift?

What part of Question 11a do you not understand?

When you write: "If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours."......you are factually incorrect.
If the USSC agreed Mr. Abramski would be a free man, he is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Not only is your reading comprehension at question, so is your mathematical skills. At last count only zukiphile seems to have attempted any disagreement.

Bottom line is, several licensed dealers are in this thread and every single one has agreed with me. Go get your FFL, start reading you some ATF regs and get back to us.

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Clear reasoning will not incorporate it.

I wasn't making an appeal to popularity, he was....I was correcting his math error.

An appeal to authority is also a fallacy, though simple federal firearm licensing isn't a stand in for authority to construe code or caselaw.

What "authority"? I haven't quoted or referred to anyone in authority....that would be ATF. What I did do was point out the opinions of other FFL's who have commented in this thread. Don't you feel a little nervous that not a single FFL in this thread has agreed with you?

Note that while you chide others to read, your count above may be off a bit.

Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom

Quote:
If they buyer expresses an intent to act as an agent for another person...yes it is probably a straw man..

Nothing in Federal law or ATF regulations requires a buyer to express an intent to act as a agent for another person. The simple act of purchasing the firearm on behalf of another person is a straw sale (with the sole exception of a gift).

Your first sentence is correct if you mean it from the vantage point of the FFL; a buyer need not express fraudulent intent to the ffl.

Your second sentence is ambiguous. If "on behalf of" means according to an agreement between agent and principle, you are correct.

FFL or not, caution is often a virtue; if you exhibit that caution in your sales that's great. A more cautious approach to evaluating the legality of a transaction from a single online post might have saved you from jumping to conclusions about facts not available to you. It might also restrain you from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you "needs to read".

So.....you agree with me?
By any standard the purchase by aarondhgraham was a straw sale.
You can obfuscate all you want but he was not the actual transferee/buyer.
The instructions on the 4473 say so.
ATF regulations say so.
Federal law says so.

Yet you continue to toss around the concept of "agency" between the purchaser and actual transferee/buyer as if that matters.....it doesn't.

 

[zukiphile]

You will forgive me for addressing your points out of order; let me know if you think that does your position an injustice.

Yet you continue to toss around the concept of "agency" between the purchaser and actual transferee/buyer as if that matters.....it doesn't.

If you do not understand that an agency relationship is necessary in order for a straw sale to occur, you can't understand what a straw sale actually is. Reading examples on a form isn't a substitute for understanding the underlying principle.

How convenient you "forgot" to include the entire conversation that aarondhgraham had with the clerk:

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.

So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

He stated that he intended to buy the gun and immediately trade it to his lady friend. It a straw sale. He lied on the 4473. It's a felony.

Stop being obtuse.

Emphasis added. I bolded the part that isn't in the text you just quoted. I've underlined the part that is merely your repeated conclusion.

See?

Abramski was convicted for lying on the 4473. He answered that he was the actual buyer/transferee........he was not. It is the same situation as aarondhgraham except that his lady friend is trading him instead of writing a check.

That is incorrect.

In Abramski, the defendant received payment prior to the transfer, indicating that he and his uncle had already reached a principle-agent agreement. On the other hand, Lady Friend hadn't conducted the trade prior to the FFL transfer.

Oh good grief......read the instructions on the 4473 and tell me what exception there is other than giving a gun as a gift?

What part of Question 11a do you not understand?

None of it.

There are a number of scenarios not mentioned in your form instructions that are not examples of straw purchases.

Here's one. I buy a rifle because it is a great deal. I know you love rifles and that I will see you in a week. I see you, you love the rifle and sell it to you.

What "authority"? I haven't quoted or referred to anyone in authority....that would be ATF. What I did do was point out the opinions of other FFL's who have commented in this thread. Don't you feel a little nervous that not a single FFL in this thread has agreed with you?

No. Holding an FFL doesn't suggest competence to understand the legal issue, as demonstrated by your insistence that agency isn't related pertinent to the issue of a straw purchase.

When you write: "If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours."......you are factually incorrect.
If the USSC agreed Mr. Abramski would be a free man, he is not.

Factually incorrect? I don't think you meant that.

As in my prior example, if you want to buy a gun then give or sell it to me, you can. You just aren't able to do it without being the actual purchaser first. Once you are the actual purchaser, you may sell or give it to me.

Abramski was found to have done something different because he had an agency relationship with his uncle. If you want me to direct you to the discussion of that in the decision, I am happy to. However you seem displeased by the time I quoted it for you.

Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point.

Tom, you might like to review Steve's posts.

Actually Zukiphile is correct.

Read Frank Ettin's Definitions posted above.

Here it is again.

I am confident that isn't your point.

So.....you agree with me?
By any standard the purchase by aarondhgraham was a straw sale.
You can obfuscate all you want but he was not the actual transferee/buyer.

No, tom. I don't share your conclusion.

Explaining the role of agency to you isn't obfuscation.

 

[2ndsojourn]

Hmmm...aarondhgraham has been awfully quiet.

It seems to me that this issue is, in fact a straw sale. But if ever there was a case ripe for jury nullification, this would be it. Being both aarond and his friend are both CCL permit holders, the shop owner, right or wrong, decided 'no harm, no foul', and let the sale go through.

 

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point

Not from where I sit.

You are "speculating" that the lady Friend and aarondhgraham had a prior arrangement.

This is something we will never know as fact, therefore it was not a straw unless there is proof of this prior arrangement.

 

[Dufus]

I bought a handgun as a gift for a lady friend and a class to go with it. After it was done, I wanted to go get 6 or 7 more!!!!

 

[Onward Allusion]

<sigh> 3 pages . . . Pretty hard to prove either way. What's the diff between buying the gun outright from the lady friend instead of buying a gun and trading her for the one you want?

BTW, where is the Curmudgeon??? I'm surprise he hasn't chimed in.

 

[tsillik]

This has been one confusing topic!

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile You will forgive me for addressing your points out of order; let me know if you think that does your position an injustice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Yet you continue to toss around the concept of "agency" between the purchaser and actual transferee/buyer as if that matters.....it doesn't.

If you do not understand that an agency relationship is necessary in order for a straw sale to occur, you can't understand what a straw sale actually is. Reading examples on a form isn't a substitute for understanding the underlying principle.

An FFL does not need to know the underlying principle of "agency relationship" is in order to know if it's a straw sale. ATF gives excellent examples for dealers to use as did Frank Ettin.

You choose to not believe that aarondhgraham had an agency relationship with his lady friend......fine. I do.

If you were to float this thread by any ATF IOI or Enforcement agent I'll bet they agree with me and the other FFL's on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
How convenient you "forgot" to include the entire conversation that aarondhgraham had with the clerk:

Quote:
I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.

So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

He stated that he intended to buy the gun and immediately trade it to his lady friend. It a straw sale. He lied on the 4473. It's a felony.

Stop being obtuse.

Emphasis added. I bolded the part that isn't in the text you just quoted. I've underlined the part that is merely your repeated conclusion.

See?

See? Yes I do. You bolded "his lady friend" in my comment and claimed it wasn't in the text I quoted. I think you need to look again. I bolded it in red See?
Sorry, I do not see where you underlined anything in my comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Abramski was convicted for lying on the 4473. He answered that he was the actual buyer/transferee........he was not. It is the same situation as aarondhgraham except that his lady friend is trading him instead of writing a check.

That is incorrect.

In Abramski, the defendant received payment prior to the transfer, indicating that he and his uncle had already reached a principle-agent agreement. On the other hand, Lady Friend hadn't conducted the trade prior to the FFL transfer.

Funny, but this synopsis from the US Supreme Court seems to believe otherwise:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_5468.pdf

ABRAMSKI v. UNITED STATES
Syllabus
if a would-be gun buyer could evade them all simply by enlisting the aid of an intermediary to execute the paperwork on his behalf. The statute’s language is thus best read in context to refer to the actual rather than nominal buyer. This conclusion is reinforced by this Court’s standard practice of focusing on practical realities rather than legal formalities when identifying the parties to a transaction. Pp. 7–19.

(b) Abramski argues more narrowly that his false response was not material because his uncle could have legally bought a gun for himself. But Abramski’s false statement prevented the dealer from insisting that the true buyer (Alvarez) appear in person, provide identifying information, show a photo ID, and submit to a background check. §§922(b), (c), (t). Nothing in the statute suggests that these legal duties may be wiped away merely because the actual buyer turns out to be legally eligible to own a gun. Because the dealer could not have lawfully sold the gun had it known that Abramski was not the true buyer, the misstatement was material to the lawfulness of the sale. Pp. 19–22.

2. Abramski’s misrepresentation about the identity of the actual buyer concerned “information required by [Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code] to be kept” in the dealer’s records. §924(a)(1)(A). Chapter 44 contains a provision requiring a dealer to “maintain such records . . . as the Attorney General may . . . prescribe.” §923(g)(1)(A). The Attorney General requires every licensed dealer to retain in its records a completed copy of Form 4473, see 27 CFR §478.124(b), and that form in turn includes the “actual buyer” question that Abramski answered falsely. Therefore, falsely answering a question on Form 4473 violates §924(a)(1)(A). Pp. 22–23.
706 F. 3d 307, affirmed.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Oh good grief......read the instructions on the 4473 and tell me what exception there is other than giving a gun as a gift?

What part of Question 11a do you not understand?

None of it.

I know.

There are a number of scenarios not mentioned in your form instructions that are not examples of straw purchases.

That doesn't even make sense.

Here's one. I buy a rifle because it is a great deal. I know you love rifles and that I will see you in a week. I see you, you love the rifle and sell it to you.

And I didn't agree to an immediate trade beforehand did I?
Nor did I accompany you to the gun store did I?
Nor did I go to the gun store to examine the firearm to see if I liked it did I?
Nor did I stand by as you explained to the clerk that you intended to trade it to me immediately.....did I?

Nice try, but I don't believe that to be a straw sale.....you didn't buy the firearm on my behalf......kinda tough to do that without my knowledge bud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
What "authority"? I haven't quoted or referred to anyone in authority....that would be ATF. What I did do was point out the opinions of other FFL's who have commented in this thread. Don't you feel a little nervous that not a single FFL in this thread has agreed with you?

No. Holding an FFL doesn't suggest competence to understand the legal issue, as demonstrated by your insistence that agency isn't related pertinent to the issue of a straw purchase.

One doesn't need to understand the legal foundation to understand that there is a penalty for running a red light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
When you write: "If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours."......you are factually incorrect.
If the USSC agreed Mr. Abramski would be a free man, he is not.

Factually incorrect? I don't think you meant that.

I meant every word.

As in my prior example, if you want to buy a gun then give or sell it to me, you can. You just aren't able to do it without being the actual purchaser first. Once you are the actual purchaser, you may sell or give it to me.

Except aarondhgraham (like Abramski) was not the actual transferee/buyer.

Abramski was found to have done something different because he had an agency relationship with his uncle. If you want me to direct you to the discussion of that in the decision, I am happy to. However you seem displeased by the time I quoted it for you.

I've read it, so has thousands of other FFL's.......it's the same straw purchase scenario we've been working with for decades.

If you find something in the full decision that disagrees with the USSC's own synopsis you might want to let them know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point.

Tom, you might like to review Steve's posts.

As should you. I already mentioned it once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102
Actually Zukiphile is correct.

Read Frank Ettin's Definitions posted above.

Here it is again.

I am confident that isn't your point.

See the sixth example given by frank Ettin. Fits this thread perfectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom
So.....you agree with me?
By any standard the purchase by aarondhgraham was a straw sale.
You can obfuscate all you want but he was not the actual transferee/buyer.

No, tom. I don't share your conclusion.

Explaining the role of agency to you isn't obfuscation.

Then argue with the US Supreme Court and ATF.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

While a straw purchase almost always involves a purchase on behalf of a prohibited person, it need not. The violation is for making a false statement as to whom is the actual buyer and their address, as was the case in Abramski where a former police officer was convicted although the person for whom he was purchasing a Glock was not a prohibited person. Abramski did so to try and get a police discount for his uncle.

 

[dogtown tom]

steve4102 Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogtown tom
Nope.
Chimo made the claim, at that point only you were in complete disagreement.
steve4102 actually posted Frank Ettin's examples that make my point

Not from where I sit.

So.....you are only going to choose Frank Ettin's examples that you agree with?


this is his sixth example from you earlier post:

Quote:
If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

X= aarondhgraham
Y= his lady friend

You are "speculating" that the lady Friend and aarondhgraham had a prior arrangement.

Pretty easy to speculate when aarondhgraham pretty much told the whole story.

This is something we will never know as fact, therefore it was not a straw unless there is proof of this prior arrangement.

Read his post....if you don't think bringing her to the gun store wasn't a prior arrangement I'm sorry.

 

[Boogershooter]

Ok so let me give yall a break for a minute. I have bought two firearms in the past as a gift for my father in law. Was I the actual buyer? I purchased before the occasion so I could have changed my mind at anytime. So I guess I committed a felony also? When I was in college my father bought me a pistol and I was not living under his roof. I will be going thru a similar scenario in just a couple years. Will I be a felon if I buy my son a pistol while he isn't living under my roof? My father and I often gave guns as gifts over the years to each other. I guess because we purchase the gun knowing the gun is for another person we aren't the actual purchaser? Good God Yall

 

[Boogershooter]

It's a preasy arranged deal. I give you a gift and you gift me a gift. I buy you a rifle for christmas and you give me socks and underwear. Is Christmas making felons out of us? In case some of you havnt figured it out yet I am being a bit of a a hole right now but figured I would let yall argue about something else besides aarond.